Government creating a fatherless society" - On Line Opinion 15/3/2012 - please comment

Post

April perhaps you should actually read some of Federal government reports, inquiries & public inquires into boys education and information from University professors who are qualified and research such things before posting.

You a appear to be desperately clutching at straws and making up stuff as you go along, all to defend 'feminism', not that I am surprised.

Supposed sex differences largely reflect cultural biases and are written off as biological biases. There are males excelling at school and females struggling, and vice versa.

There are but the statistics the show to vast majority with poorer out comes are boys, do not lie.

Yes I'd be interested in knowing about the all boys programs, and how the actual circurlim and teaching method (not just sex) was adjusted? If this was done in a public school then the results would have been published, so we should be able to read about it?.

The only programs I know that have been trialed the BELS and the Success For Boys but they were both successful programs, even if the feminists brigade condoned them for giving special attention to boys. By adjusting & trialing various education methods aimed at boys in the BELS program, they found 63% of the projects rated as High or Very High in terms of their capacity to demonstrate a positive impact on boys learning outcomes. A further 30% of projects were given a Medium rating and 7% a Low rating.

The literacy programs trialed which were developed on scientific and psychological theories of male learning styles, actually found a 75% increase in results among boys targeted.

Large scale trials like this clearly show how education delivery methods in the classroom can and do improve out comes of boys. April your assertion that parents make the real difference is just naive, not saying parental influence is not important, however from trials like the one above it's clear education policy and methods can and do make a real difference to outcomes for boys. It's very simplistic and ignorant to think parents are the only ones that make a real difference.

Post

"Interpreting the evidence that shows some boys have problems with their learning as boys generally have problems with their learning, fails to recognise the fact that boys who have difficulties with their learning are most often both novice learners and have weak executive control over their own learning. As such, they are expected to benefit from high levels of structure in the learning process. This is the case for all learners, including girls, regardless of their age."

"The key point is that the need for structure in the teaching and learning process is not driven by the learners gender. Boys (and girls) in the lower tail of the learning distribution need a high level of structure to learn, but this is not because they are boys, it is because they are novice learners with an underdeveloped capacity to manage their own learning."

"Seventy-eight percent of the male female differences in the 128 separate meta-analyses were found to be small or close to zero."

We have a great education system and it caters to a broad range of students. There are always going to be socially disadvantaged sub groups within any school community who will benefit from interventions designed to promote and support their engagement with the curriculum. Such disadvantaged sub groups existed prior to feminism, and are not a result of feminism.

Comments/myths such as "boys don't do as well as girls at school" or "boys need gender specific types of education" are limiting and at risk of becoming self fulfilling prophecies. These types of comments are sexist and just as damaging as the "girls dont need an education" type comments that held female students back for years.

Much of the talk of gender differences in learning styles has no actual basis in scientific literature, and is often a result of misunderstanding research findings. Intervention programs such as BELS are great and have their place for specific student sub groups. However to draw the conclusion that the success of such intervention programs is evidence of a widespread feminised education system which apparently disadvantages males is not valid or supported.

Post

Professor Christine Hoff Sommers wrote persuasively about the feminist orchestrated "girl crisis" in education in her book "The War against Boys:How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men"

"…It's a bad time to be a boy in our society. Yet the best-known studies and the academic experts say that it's girls who are suffering from a decline in self-esteem. It's girls, they say, who need extra help in school and elsewhere in a society that favors boys. The problem with boys is that they are boys, say the experts. We need to change their nature. We have to make them more like . . . girls.

Hoff found these arguments don't hold up to scrutiny… lacking in scientific rigor. The research commonly cited to support claims of male privilege and male sinfulness in education is riddled with errors. Almost none of it has been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Some of the data turn out to be mysteriously missing. A review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap.

…How did we get to this odd place? How did we come to believe in a picture of boys and girls that is the opposite of the truth? And why has that belief persisted, enshrined in law, encoded in governmental and school policies, despite overwhelming evidence against it? It has much to do with one of the American academy's most celebrated women - Carol Gilligan, Harvard University's first professor of gender studies, whom Hoff proceeds to utterly demolish.

In a passage pertinent in regards to the "research" of Jenn McIntosh.

"From a total sample of 144…It would be extraordinary to say [that one's data] are too sensitive for others to see." There are standard methods for handling confidential materials in research. Names are left out but raw scores are reported, so others can see if they can replicate your study. A researcher must also disclose how subjects were chosen, how interviews were recorded, and the method by which meaning was derived from the data.

There is no "girl crisis". Girls are outperforming boys academically, and girls' self-esteem is no different from boys'. Boys lag behind girls in reading and writing ability, and they are less likely to go to college.

The "girl crisis" has been seized upon by some feminists and has been suffused with sexual politics. Under the guise of helping girls, many schools have adopted policies that penalize boys, often for simply being masculine. Sommers says that boys do need help, but not the sort they've been getting. They need help catching up with girls academically. They need love, discipline, respect, and moral guidance. They desperately need understanding. They do not need to be rescued from 'masculinity'.

Hoff Sommers is preparing a second edition of The War Against Boys

Ref: "The War on Boys"This we think we know: American schools favour boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex

I realise this is an American article but the Australian Sisterhood is not particularly original tending simply to import US policies. We would do well to carefully scrutinise the Gonskip report with Gillard controlling the education portfolio.

Opportunity to comment on the Andrew Bolt blog. He again raises the hypocrisy of feminist double standards in "the war on women". This is the slogan being used by USA Democrats as a bloc strategy for their Senate reauthorisation of VAWA and in anticipation of the Obama re-election strategy. Likely to be applied to Mr Abbott or any conservative leader worldwide. Why arent feminists here fighting this war on women?

"No, our professional feminists must reserve their rage for the next time somebody verbals a sexist comment onto Tony Abbott. Priorities."

"Industrial feminists from developed economies like Australia were always about power, economic advancement, as well as hositilty to men and family based women. The family is hostile to women was a known Women's Electoral Lobby mantra. Self-absorption the rule. Women have been betrayed into fragmenting in families and believing they could have it all at once."

Post

Intervention programs such as BELS are great and have their place for specific student sub groups. However to draw the conclusion that the success of such intervention programs is evidence of a widespread feminised education system which apparently disadvantages males is not valid or supported.

If it 's not widely supported April then why in the past 2 years has NSW education included Units specifically designed for boys education? They were actually introduced after numerous reports showed, according to the education Dept themselves - traditional curricular, pedagogical and assessment practices have failed,, some perhaps many boys. The framework used by the ed dept now is including a basis for exploring types of education policies, curriculum frameworks, programs that are effective for boys. Some teachers now are attending programs like - The boys in school program, which teaches them skills for promoting self-esteem, understanding gender perspectives on curriculum & developing positive and productive learning environments and curriculum appropriate for boys.

There are always going to be socially disadvantaged sub groups within any school community who will benefit from interventions designed to promote and support their engagement with the curriculum.

It's not just socially disadvangted boys on average fairing worse then girls in results but those in middle and even upper class, as well. Socially disadvantaged boys fair worse then non socially disadvantaged boys though. But when compared to girls on average no matter what back ground boys under preform girls

The BELS report was in 2002 (can't remember exactly) but if you look into it you will find many reports and inquiries both government and public have been done since. Have you read them all?

Comments/myths such as "boys don't do as well as girls at school" or "boys need gender specific types of education" are limiting and at risk of becoming self fulfilling prophecies. These types of comments are sexist and just as damaging as the "girls dont need an education" type comments that held female students back for years.

So are you also saying that the reports and submissions by feminist academics into girls education in the 80's which asked for and achieved specific changes for girls were 'sexist'?

EDITED To add a bit of psychology 101 info on learning by gender, any psych student will learn about what is discussed in this overview.

There is a large body of literature available on gender differences in learning, and providing a comprehensive review of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper. Briefly, a gender-based preference in learning style is only one area in which males and females are unique. It has been reported that males have a preference for rational evaluation and logic, whereas females use "elaborative" processing in which they tend to seek personal relevance or individual connections with the material being taught. In addition, males tend to be more achievement oriented, whereas females are more socially and performance oriented. The genders also differ in their beliefs about what is most important to student learning, with females ranking social interaction with other students and self-confidence as higher than males. Furthermore, males are likely to attribute their success in the classroom to external causes, such as teaching, whereas females generally see their success are being directly related to their efforts in the classroom. This suggests that males tend to be more externally focused, but females tend to be more introspective and self-critical.

Post

Frenzy, you are doing the exact thing that the people behind these programs for boys have said not to do. You have applied their situation to all boys. These programs have been designed to assist the sub group of boys who need them, which is good, but it is wrong to conclude that all boys need such assistance. You are selling boys short.

There is research which shows there are differences between males and females in certain aspects. However, there is virtually no research which shows that these differences are so significant, and impact so much on learning that all boys and all girls need to be taught differently.

The problem with the psych 101 approach is that it is basic information. Often the latest findings are run with without proper understanding. For example, if boys are more competitive than girls then does that then mean they are incapable of learning unless everything is a competition? Of course not.

The fundamental gender differences between education outcomes for boys and girls is girls have a slight edge on some aspects of English, and boys have a slight edge on some aspects of maths. The difference is quite small and there is so much overlap between boys and girls generally that there is no scientific justification for teaching boys in a different way.

There is a huge variation in boys skill levels and those at the lower end out number girls. These boys benefit from the additional programs available to them. However to conclude that these boys are represenataive of all boys is simply not true. The sub groups of boys that struggle to engage with school existed well before feminism, so blaming this on feminism is a cop out.

Craigo, I don't know what your post refers to, I can't understand what you mean.

Post

April said

Post

There is research which shows there are differences between males and females in certain aspects. However, there is virtually no research which shows that these differences are so significant, and impact so much on learning that all boys and all girls need to be taught differently.

One of best known recent longitudinal studies that shows a huge difference in learning styles, gender and out comes was concluded from memory 3 or 4 years ago in the US by stetson Uni. Over 5 years children were split into co-ed classes, then the same number of children were split into same sex only classes, they taught the same content to all children. However educational psychologists taught the teachers practical gender-specific classroom strategies & best practices based on gender specific learning principles. All other demographics like class size, socioeconomic back ground ect were matched.

The results after 3 years on a comprehensive assessment tests;

boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient

girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient

girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient

boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient.

Some of the boys in the single sex boys group had previously been labeled ADHD when in previous co-ed classes, all of these boys results and their behavior improved dramatically. The engagement of boys in single sex class, not only in regards to learning but with in the school environment dramatically increased. The girls didn't report or show such dramatic social/emotional effects as the boys did.

The co-ed classes gender test results in that study, are pretty much on par as Aussie schools gender averages now.

Other similar large studies from around the world have had similar findings, including one from Acer in Australia (over 200,000 high school participants), which found that coeducational settings are limited by their capacity to accommodate the large differences in cognitive, social and development & growth rates of boys and girls aged between 12 and 16. Studies from Cambridge University (consisting of experiments at 50 schools), several also from England and Jamaica have had the same findings….

The studies and out comes on educational results do show a significant difference between gender and how gender specific teaching strategies can and do affect out comes. According to a colleague who is an ed psych, there are over a hundred such studies that have been done in the past few years, that he knows off. I wouldn't say that is considered virtually no research.

I am not saying we need to drop co-ed classes either (only because it is not practical and it costs), however I am saying that the gender gap needs to closed by having a program that places both genders on a level playing field.

The fundamental gender differences between education outcomes for boys and girls is girls have a slight edge on some aspects of English, and boys have a slight edge on some aspects of maths

Interesting as girls are now out preforming boys now in numeracy as well as literacy.

The sub groups of boys that struggle to engage with school existed well before feminism, so blaming this on feminism is a cop out.

Actually April if you if you go by the feminists academics version of events in the 70's/ 80's /90's, they will say the sub group consisted mainly of girls…hence why they got on the job of reform. Feminism started to gain momentum in the early 60's, before that I don't think too many of either gender went to high school even. My mum and all my uncles left school at 14, my mum started nursing at 15,that was in the late 60's as it was the norm (among working class anyway), so I can't really see the relevance in what gender sub groups existed pre 60's feminism……

These programs have been designed to assist the sub group of boys who need them, which is good, but it is wrong to conclude that all boys need such assistance. You are selling boys short.

Then the feminists must have been selling girls short in the 80's/ 90's? when they concluded all girls were educationally disadvantaged because they scored on average in the middle lower/subgroup on basic skills test results. Now the wheel has turned…they are publicy saying 'it's about time boys knew how it felt for us in the 60's'………and yes that is a quote from an out spoken feminist on the issue

Post

What is the relevance of international data to education systems in Australia? None. The key thing to consider with any research which shows differences is to consider what is called "effect size". In other words, how big is the difference? The overall difference between boys and girls is quite small and I would challenge anyone to show evidence that on average girls are vastly outperforming boys across the entire curriculum because it is simply not the case.

Firstly, any students who need help should get it, no matter the gender.

Secondly, please understand that when boys and girls performance is measured, girls scores are much less variable than boys, i.e. girls scores gravitate towards the mean, and boys scores vary widely at both ends.

There is therefore a bunch of boys at the lower end of the performance rankings, with no corresponding bunch of girls at that lower end. This phenomenon is not BECAUSE of the education system, it is being IDENTIFIED by the education system. It is not valid to conclude that this phenomenon is evidence that all boys are educationally disadvantaged.

These underperforming boys need assistance so they don't disengage with school. Absolutely, and programs which engage their interest in school by catering to the needs of this sub group are beneficial. However the idea that there is a male specific type of teaching method that caters for the vast variety of abilities/interests of all boys is far too simplistic.

The fact that this bunch of boys at the lower end of the spectrum needs assistance does not imply ALL boys are disadvantaged at school. That is a myth. The vast majority of boys are doing well at school. In my state the top students at VCE are a roughly equal mix of boys and girls and I have no doubt the results in other states would be similar.

It is a shame that boys may grow up hearing that the education system is disadvantaging them, or that they are not expected to do as well as girls, because these false beliefs will hold boys back.

Post

i see this topic has also come under fire re:feminism april i have a question or 2 that would appreciate an honest answer

If you were an employer do you believe that no matter how smart or dumb a person may be that there should be 50 50 gender in a workplace environment?

Do you believe that boys and girls learn at the same rate and the same methodically?

Do you believe that male teachers (daily male mentors for young boys) are outnumbered by females in the teaching sector? Do you believe that this lack of mentorship may have an impact on the education of our children?

Do you believe that youth need mentorship from men and women be it boys and girls? or are you of the mind that a woman can teach a young boy all the tools required to become a man? and visa versa for young girls and fathers.

Post

April said

What is the relevance of international data to education systems in Australia? None.

None only to those who have the slightest of slight knowledge about the education system.

To show that the answer none is wrong needs just one reference to international data. So for one the Acronym HSIE, as used in the NSW curriculum, says enough on its own: Human Society and Its Environment (i.e. it is not ASIE or Australian Society and Its Environment).

April would obviously pass with flying colours at SMUCK, the School of the Most Unintelligent Contributors Known.

Post

What is the relevance of international data to education systems in Australia? None.

As I said Australian research mirrors it, in fact the study I mentioned was included in the current education reforms geared at improving out comes for boys, that have started happening (in some states) and those that are being further considered. The only ones opposing the reforms are feminists, professional academics and researchers are overwhelming in support of it. Why is that?

Firstly, any students who need help should get it, no matter the gender.

Of course they should, however if we have a gender balanced education system, then according to AUSTRALIAN and international research we will have less children needing help. In the only school currently in Australia that has implemented gender specific teaching strategies (strategies recommend by over seas researchers) aimed at improving boys outcomes, have found boys marks have jumped between 20% - 25% and are now on par with girls results and their is no longer a gender discrepancy in results or performance or engagement. Their methods were applied on all boys in co-ed classes. The reforms are not about changing the whole system to suit boys, just adding some different aspects which have been shown to benefit them.

Only those with some bias against the male gender would argue against this type of reform which shows in an equalizing of out comes.

There will always be children (boys and girls) that don't fit in the neurotypical box the ed system places them in, due to disability ect. These children will still get help needed (due to budgets & attitudes it's never enough but that really is non gender issue).

The overall difference between boys and girls is quite small and I would challenge anyone to show evidence that on average girls are vastly outperforming boys across the entire curriculum because it is simply not the case.

Girls in op results in all subjects in QLD are out preforming boys. Not all states release results, though they get a mention by gender in some of the inquires.

NAPLAN tests nationwide show girls are out preforming boys in all areas.

In NSW HSC 2010 results by gender the top results in marks went to 70 girls and 37 boys.

This info is from the - Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Council for Educational Research and NSW Board of Studies

Post

What evidence are you citing to support your assertion that "the overall difference between boys and girls is quite small"?

1. Yes, failing students should get help regardless of gender. However, this does not ameliorate the problem that the education & family law systems are harming our boys.

2. With regard to "effect size. If girls performance scores are less variable than boys then would this then not suggest that the increased standard deviations for boys would necessarily flatten the normal distribution curve with the result that boys mean scores would be lower than girls?

The political scientist James Q. Wilson explained this "spread" phenomenon on almost any intelligence or achievement test as - "There are more male geniuses and more male idiots."

Boys dominate dropout lists, failure lists, and learning-disability lists. Students in these groups rarely take VCE tests for admission to University. On the other hand, the exceptional boys who take school seriously show up in disproportionately high numbers for standardized tests.

Gender-equity activists ought to apply their logic consistently: if the shortage of girls at the high end of the ability distribution is evidence of unfairness to girls, then the excess of boys at the low end should be deemed evidence of unfairness to boys.

What does Gronski say? Emily's List must have liked it to promote him to the head of the super class - over his own preferred recommendation of Peter Costello.

And not persuaded by your catch-22 argument that we should not criticise the education system that disadvantages boys because it might disadvantage boys too Ministry of Truth for me

More inclined towards "gender feminists'' hold tremendous power within academic and bureaucratic institutions, such as the family courts, schools, childcare, and are working to transform the world by "realigning the goals of education, purging the curriculum of its white male bias.''

Children are the levers for social change. Fatherless children become vulnerable putty in the indoctrinating hands of ideological zealots …to serve as so much grist for the mill of alternative-familial schemes and green utopia ambitions.

Post

In my state the top students at VCE are a roughly equal mix of boys and girls and I have no doubt the results in other states would be similar.

What state April? it can't be QLD, NSW, however since you said VCE, I am assuming Victoria? if so in 2011, according to Victorian Tertiary Admissions Center (VTAC) data, boys actually out preformed girls in the top 33 (11 girls, 22 boys) students who scored 99.95 or above.

In regards to the other 45,000 students who scored below 99.95, girls outperformed boys by around 9% in marks.

Yes I believe other states could be similar, although NSW and QLD are far worse in the discrepancy in marks. Victoria has a higher % of private and separate sex schools then some other states, so probably hard to compare state results directly with each other though. Separate sex private schools tend to do better in VCE results irrespective of gender & tend to monoplise the highest ranking scores. Many of the same sex private schools, already have gender specific education statagies in place, might be why their students dominate to very top of the results. Most the boys & girls that score in the top 99.95 have been on highly gifted programs, have IQ's in the profound ranges and interestingly alot the boys are Chinese and have only completed 2 years study in Australia. Comparing the gender results of top VCE performers , has varibles that can hardly be said to be relvant to the vast majority.

Post

The funny thing is i find that within feminism personally what i see is not women wanting to get into the manufacturing or trades as such (although we do have a few, some are good some are bad) but there is a lot more interest in women wanting to get into higher education and pushing for the higher jobs, management, government etc... now is this what ya might call "job snobbing" just having a full time full filling job not enough but to rule the roost instead... leave the "cake" for the boys and go straight for the "cream" ay ladies? and instead of having the right person for the job have a government fund for the ladies to have the first leg in the door.

Post

Please refer to page 23, figure 6 of the report attached below which shows the overall academic achievement of boys and girls. The overall differences are minimal. There is a "myths" section in that report starting on p.13 which is worth reading as well.

srldad101, standard deviations are a measure of deviation from the mean. Wide variances in SDs can still result in the same mean as a sample with less variation. The bell curve for girls is tighter than for boys, and that is why we see more boys than girls at the top and more boys than girlsat the bottom. These extremes are just that, extremes, andcaution should be taken when generalising. The vast majority of boys do as well as the vast majority of girls, which is precisely why over exagerating the occurrence of boys struggling to engage in school shouldbe avoided (i.e. it creates a self fulfilling prophecy).

Abstract

In 2004, schools involved in BELS Stage Two focused on trialing effective approaches to addressing boys education, and establishing appropriate evaluation tools and methodologies to monitor the impact of these interventions. In 2005, BELS clusters implemented interventions across their clusters and measured their impact on their target group of boys.

The Final Report provides a detailed analysis and discussion of the key findings and experiences of the 350 project schools in stage two of the Boys Education Lighthouse Schools program.

The BELS program followed almost a decade of public enquiries into issues associated with boys learning in Australian schools.Research and public debate had identified the following key issues in relation to boys participation in schooling and their educational outcomes:

there are more boys than girls identified as at-risk in literacy. A lower proportion of boys are achieving the national literacy benchmarks compared to girls, recent studies had indicated that boys reported less positive experiences and enjoyment of schooling, other studies indicated that boys are less engaged in their schooling, more easily distracted and less motivated, behavioural issues, such as risk taking, are more likely to be associated with boys, and depression and suicide is more prevalent among boys than girls, the school retention rate for boys is lower than that for girls, and the gap between boys and girls tertiary entrance scores has widened over the past two decades.

While these issues are significant, research had also shown the need to be mindful of making generalisations about boys performance and viewing them as a homogeneous group.

The report contains a detailed presentation of:

the findings arising from the activities undertaken and a synthesis of those findings, adopted approaches to boys education, boys educational outcomes achieved as a result of those activities, and individual case studies that are representative of the range of approaches to boys education.

The report found that the most effective general strategies for improving the educational outcomes of boys were:

1. focusing on specific sub-groups of boys rather than the whole population of boys in the school. In some cases, the specific sub-groups were the cohort at a specific year level, or boys who had been identified as struggling with their learning in specific subject areas, or boys who were disengaged from the mainstream of school life, and 2. using a multi-strategy approach that usually included: a) activity-based learning, in which students focused on literacy, behaviour and social outcomes through hands-on workshop programs with links to the real-world, b) variations of mentoring and role modelling; and c) enhancing the learning environment in normal classrooms.

Post

April can you please answer my questions that i asked yesterday at 352 pm?

If you were an employer do you believe that no matter how smart or dumb a person may be that there should be 50 50 gender in a workplace environment?

Do you believe that boys and girls learn at the same rate and the same methodically?

Do you believe that male teachers (daily male mentors for young boys) are outnumbered by females in the teaching sector? Do you believe that this lack of mentorship may have an impact on the education of our children?

Do you believe that youth need mentorship from men and women be it boys and girls? or are you of the mind that a woman can teach a young boy all the tools required to become a man? and visa versa for young girls and fathers.

Post

AdelaideD said

April can you please answer my questions that i asked yesterday at 352 pm?

I'm afraid April doesn't like answering questions, she prefers to constantly side-track and pretend she hasn't heard things she doesn't like, which would include anything that contradicts her quasi-religious feminism.

Post

That was only a preliminary report and one of many that were submitted to the boys education federal government inquiry's, have you read anything done since 2002 or the follow up's done since the BELS program..obviously you have not read the other reports or are ignoring them because they doesn't suit your views.

Post

AdelaideD I didn't answer your questions because I can't see the point in people directing their comments to me and not the broader topic. I have made my contribution, and getting into a personal debate with you based on your misguided notions of what you think feminism is is pointless. All people are different, gender is over rated, teachers ability to teach does not vary with their gender, and employers (if they are wise) would cast a large net when recruiting so that people from all walks of life get considered for the position.

Frenzy, the evidence I provided (from a 2006 final report) comes from the thick of the so called "feminised" education system. You have made a lot of unsubstantiated claims, including females score 30% higher than boys on some aspects of literacy. Where's your evidence for that?